1. The authors of the
communications are Alina Simunek, who acts on her behalf and on behalf of
her husband, Jaroslav Simunek, Dagmar Tuzilova Hastings and Josef Prochazka,
residents of Canada and Switzerland, respectively. They claim to be victims
of violations of their human rights by the Czech Republic. The Covenant was
ratified by Czechoslovakia on 23 December 1975. The Optional Protocol
entered into force for the Czech Republic on 12 June 1991. The Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic ratified the Optional Protocol in March 1991 but, on
31 December 1992, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic ceased to exist. On
22 February 1993, the Czech Republic notified its succession to the Covenant
and the Optional Protocol.

THE FACTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE
AUTHORS:

2.1 Alina Simunek, a
Polish citizen born in 1960, and Jaroslav Simunek, a Czech citizen,
currently reside in Ontario, Canada. They state that they were forced to
leave Czechoslovakia in 1987, under pressure of the security forces of the
communist regime. Under the legislation then applicable, their property was
confiscated. After the fall of the Communist government on 17 November 1989,
the Czech authorities published statements which indicated that expatriate
Czech citizens would be rehabilitated in as far as any criminal conviction
was concerned, and their property restituted.

2.2 In July 1990, Mr. and
Mrs. Simunek returned to Czechoslovakia in order to submit a request for the
return of their property, which had been confiscated by the District
National Committee, a State organ, in Jablonece. It transpired, however,
that between September 1989 and February 1990, all their property and
personal effects had been evaluated and auctioned off by the District
National Committee. Unsaleable items had been destroyed. On 13 February
1990, the authors' real estate was transferred to the Jablonece Sklarny
factory, for which Jaroslav Simunek had been working for twenty years.

2.3 Upon lodging a
complaint with the District National Committee, an arbitration hearing was
convened between the authors, their witnesses and representatives of the
factory on 18 July 1990. The latter's representatives denied that the
transfer of the authors' property had been illegal. The authors thereupon
petitioned the office of the district public prosecutor, requesting an
investigation of the matter on the ground that the transfer of their
property had been illegal, since it had been transferred in the absence of a
court order or court proceedings to which the authors had been parties. On
17 September 1990, the Criminal Investigations Department of the National
Police in Jablonece launched an investigation; its report of 29 November
1990 concluded that no violation of (then) applicable regulations could be
ascertained, and that the authors' claim should be dismissed, as the
Government had not yet amended the former legislation.

2.4 On 2 February 1991,
the Czech and Slovak Federal Government adopted Act 87/1991, which entered
into force on 1 April 1991. It endorses the rehabilitation of Czech citizens
who had left the country under communist pressure and lays down the
conditions for restitution or compensation for loss of property. Under
Section 3, subsection 1, of the Act, those who had their property turned
into State ownership in the cases specified in Section 6 of the Act are
entitled to restitution, but only if they are citizens of the Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic and are permanent residents in its territory.

2.5 Under Section 5,
subsection 1, of the Act, anyone currently in (illegal) possession of the
property shall restitute it to the rightful owner, upon a written request
from the latter, who must also prove his or her claim to the property and
demonstrate how the property was turned over to the State. Under subsection
2, the request for restitution must be submitted to the individual in
possession of the property, within six months of the entry into force of the
Act. If the person in possession of the property does not comply with the
request, the rightful owner may submit his or her claim to the competent
tribunal, within one year of the date of entry into force of the Act
(subsection 4).

2.6 With regard to the
issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it appears that the authors have
not submitted their claims for restitution to the local courts, as required
under Section 5, subsection 4, of the Act. It transpires from their
submissions that they consider this remedy ineffective, as they do not
fulfil the requirements under Section 3, subsection 1. Alina Simunek adds
that they have lodged complaints with the competent municipal, provincial
and federal authorities, to no avail. She also notes that the latest
correspondence is a letter from the Czech President's Office, dated 16 June
1992, in which the author is informed that the President's Office cannot
intervene in the matter, and that only the tribunals are competent to
pronounce on the matter. The author's subsequent letters remained without
reply.

2.7 Dagmar Hastings
Tuzilova, an American citizen by marriage and currently residing in
Switzerland, emigrated from Czechoslovakia in 1968. On 21 May 1974, she was
sentenced in absentia to a prison term as well as forfeiture of her
property, on the ground that she had 'illegally emigrated' from
Czechoslovakia. Her property, 5/18 shares of her family's estate in Pilsen,
is currently held by the Administration of Houses in this city.

2.8 By decision of 4
October 1990 of the District Court of Pilsen, Dagmar Hastings Tuzilova was
rehabilitated; the District Court's earlier decision, as well as all other
decisions in the case, were declared null and void. All her subsequent
applications to the competent authorities and a request to the
Administration of Houses in Pilsen to negotiate the restitution of her
property have, however, not produced any tangible result.

2.9 Apparently, the
Administration of Housing agreed, in the spring of 1992, to transfer the
5/18 of the house back to her, on the condition that the State notary in
Pilsen agreed to register this transaction. The State notary, however, has
so far refused to register the transfer. At the beginning of 1993, the
District Court of Pilsen confirmed the notary's action (Case No. 11 Co.
409/92). The author states that she was informed that she could appeal this
decision, via the District Court in Pilsen, to the Supreme Court. She
apparently filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on 7 May 1993, but no
decision had been taken as of 20 January 1994.

2.10 On 16 March 1992,
Dagmar Hastings Tuzilova filed a civil action against the Administration of
Houses, pursuant to Section 5, subsection 4, of the Act. On 25 May 1992, the
District Court of Pilsen dismissed the claim, on the ground that, as an
American citizen residing in Switzerland, she was not entitled to
restitution within the meaning of Section 3, subsection 1, of Act 87/1991.
The author contends that any appeal against this decision would be
ineffective.

2.11 Josef Prochazka is a
Czech citizen born in 1920, who currently resides in Switzerland. He fled
from Czechoslovakia in August 1968, together with his wife and two sons. In
the former Czechoslovakia, he owned a house with two three-bedroom
apartments and a garden, as well as another plot of land. Towards the
beginning of 1969, he donated his property, in the appropriate form and with
the consent of the authorities, to his father. By judgments of a district
court of July and September 1971, he, his wife and sons were sentenced to
prison terms on the grounds of "illegal emigration" from Czechoslovakia. In
1973, Josef Prochazka's father died; in his will, which was recognized as
valid by the authorities, the author's sons inherited the house and other
real estate.

2.12 In 1974, the court
decreed the confiscation of the author's property, because of his and his
family's "illegal emigration", in spite of the fact that the authorities
had, several years earlier, recognized as lawful the transfer of the
property to the author's father. In December 1974, the house and garden were
sold, according to the author at a ridiculously low price, to a high party
official.

2.13 By decisions of 26
September 1990 and of 31 January 1991, respectively, the District Court of
Ustí rehabilitated the author and his sons as far as their criminal
conviction was concerned, with retroactive effect. This means that the court
decisions of 1971 and 1974 (see paragraphs 2.11 and 2.12 above) were
invalidated.

THE COMPLAINT:

3.1 Alina and Jaroslav
Simunek contend that the requirements of Act 87/1991 constitute unlawful
discrimination, as it only applies to "pure Czechs living in the Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic". Those who fled the country or were forced into
exile by the ex-communist regime must take a permanent residence in
Czechoslovakia to be eligible for restitution or compensation. Alina
Simunek, who lived and worked in Czechoslovakia for eight years, would not
be eligible at all for restitution, on account of her Polish citizenship.
The authors claim that the Act in reality legalizes former Communist
practices, as more than 80% of the confiscated property belongs to persons
who do not meet these strict requirements.

3.2 Alina Simunek alleges
that the conditions for restitution imposed by the Act constitute
discrimination on the basis of political opinion and religion, without
however substantiating her claim.

3.4 Josef Prochazka also
claims that he is a victim of the discriminatory provisions of Act 87/1991;
he adds that as the court decided, with retroactive effect, that the
confiscation of his property was null and void, the law should not be
applied to him at all, as he never lost his legal title to his property, and
because there can be no question of 'restitution' of the property.

THE COMMITTEE'S ADMISSIBILITY
DECISION:

4.1 On 26 October 1993,
the communications were transmitted to the State party under rule 91 of the
rules of procedure of the Human Rights Committee. No submission under rule
91 was received from the State party, despite a reminder addressed to it.
The authors were equally requested to provide a number of clarifications;
they complied with this request by letters of 25 November 1993 (Alina and
Jaroslav Simunek), 3 December 1993 and 11/12 April 1994 (Josef Prochazka)
and 19 January 1994 (Dagmar Hastings Tuzilova).

4.2 At its 51st session
the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It noted
with regret the State party's failure to provide information and
observations on the question of the admissibility of the communication.
Notwithstanding this absence of cooperation on the part of the State party,
the Committee proceeded to ascertain whether the conditions of admissibility
under the Optional Protocol had been met.

4.3 The Committee noted
that the confiscation and sale of the property in question by the
authorities of Czechoslovakia occurred in the 1970's and 1980's.
Irrespective of the fact that all these events took place prior to the date
of entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the Czech Republic, the
Committee recalled that the right to property, as such, is not protected by
the Covenant.

4.4 The Committee
observed, however, that the authors complained about the discriminatory
effect of the provisions of Act 87/1991, in the sense that they apply only
to persons unlawfully stripped of their property under the former regime who
now have a permanent residence in the Czech Republic and are Czech citizens.
Thus the question before the Committee was whether the law could be deemed
discriminatory within the meaning of article 26 of the Covenant.

4.5 The Committee observed
that the State party's obligations under the Covenant applied as of the date
of its entry into force. A different issue arose as to when the Committee's
competence to consider complaints about alleged violations of the Covenant
under the Optional Protocol was engaged. In its jurisprudence under the
Optional Protocol, the Committee has consistently held that it cannot
consider alleged violations of the Covenant which occurred before the entry
into force of the Optional Protocol for the State party, unless the
violations complained of continue after the entry into force of the Optional
Protocol. A continuing violation is to be interpreted as an affirmation,
after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, by act or by clear
implication, of the previous violations of the State party.

4.6 While the authors in
the present case have had their criminal convictions quashed by Czech
tribunals, they still contend that Act No. 87/1991 discriminates against
them, in that in the case of two of the applicants (Mr. and Mrs. Simunek;
Mrs. Hastings Tuzilova), they cannot benefit from the law because they are
not Czech citizens or have no residence in the Czech Republic, and that in
the case of the third applicant (Mr. Prochazka), the law should not have
been deemed applicable to his situation at all.

5. On 22 July 1994 the
Human Rights Committee therefore decided that the communication was
admissible in as much as it may raise issues under articles 14, paragraph 6,
and 26 of the Covenant.

THE STATE PARTY'S EXPLANATIONS

6.1 In its submission,
dated 12 December 1994, the State party argues that the legislation in
question is not discriminatory. It draws the Committee's attention to the
fact that according to article 11, Section 2, of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the Constitution of the Czech
Republic, "... the law may specify that some things may be owned exclusively
by citizens or by legal persons having their seat in the Czech Republic."

6.2 The State party
affirms its commitment to the settlement of property claims by restitution
of properties to persons injured during the period of 25 February 1948 to 1
January 1990. Although certain criteria had to be stipulated for the
restitution of confiscated properties, the purpose of such requirements is
not to violate human rights. The Czech Republic cannot and will not dictate
to anybody where to live. Restitution of confiscated property is a very
complicated and de facto unprecedented measure and therefore it cannot be
expected to rectify all damages and to satisfy all the people injured by the
Communist regime.

7.1 With respect to the
communication submitted by Mrs. Alina Simunek the State party argues that
the documents submitted by the author do not define the claims clearly
enough. It appears from her submission that Mr. Jaroslav Simunek was
probably kept in prison by the State Security Police. Nevertheless, it is
not clear whether he was kept in custody or actually sentenced to
imprisonment. As concerns the confiscation of the property of Mr. and Mrs.
Simunek, the communication does not define the measure on the basis of which
they were deprived of their ownership rights. In case Mr. Simunek was
sentenced for a criminal offence mentioned in Section 2 or Section 4 of Law
No. 119/1990 on judicial rehabilitation as amended by subsequent provisions,
he could claim rehabilitation under the law or in review proceedings and,
within three years of the entry into force of the court decision on his
rehabilitation, apply to the Compensations Department of the Ministry of
Justice of the Czech Republic for compensation pursuant to Section 23 of the
above-mentioned Law. In case Mr. Simunek was unlawfully deprived of his
personal liberty and his property was confiscated between 25 February 1948
and 1 January 1990 in connection with a criminal offence mentioned in
Section 2 and Section 4 of the Law but the criminal proceedings against him
were not initiated, he could apply for compensation on the basis of a court
decision issued at the request of the injured party and substantiate his
application with the documents which he had at his disposal or which his
legal adviser obtained from the archives of the Ministry of the Interior of
the Czech Republic.

7.2 As concerns the
restitution of the forfeited or confiscated property, the State party
concludes from the submission that Alina and Jaroslav Simunek do not comply
with the requirements of Section 3 (1) of Law No. 87/1991 on extrajudicial
rehabilitations, namely the requirements of citizenship of the Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic and permanent residence on its territory.
Consequently, they cannot be recognized as persons entitled to restitution.
Remedy would be possible only in case at least one of them complied with
both requirements and applied for restitution within 6 months from the entry
into force of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitations (i.e. by the end of
September 1991).

8.1 With respect to the
communication of Mrs. Dagmar Hastings-Tuzilova the State party clarifies
that Mrs. Dagmar Hastings-Tuzilova claims the restitution of the 5/18 shares
of house No. 2214 at Cechova 61, Pilsen, forfeited on the basis of the
ruling of the Pilsen District Court of 21 May 1974, by which she was
sentenced for the criminal offence of illegal emigration according to
Section 109 (2) of the Criminal Law. She was rehabilitated pursuant to Law
No. 119/1990 on judicial rehabilitations by the ruling of the Pilsen
District Court of 4 October 1990. She applied for restitution of her share
of the estate in Pilsen pursuant to Law No. 87/1991 on extrajudicial
rehabilitations. Mrs. Hastings-Tuzilova concluded an agreement on the
restitution with the Administration of Houses in Pilsen, which the State
Notary in Pilsen refused to register due to the fact that she did not comply
with the conditions stipulated by Section 3 (1) of the law on extrajudicial
rehabilitations.

8.2 Mrs.
Hastings-Tuzilova, although rehabilitated pursuant to the law on judicial
rehabilitations, cannot be considered entitled person as defined by Section
19 of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitations, because on the date of
application she did not comply with the requirements of Section 3 (1) of the
above-mentioned law, i.e. requirements of citizenship of the Czech and
Slovak Federal Republic and permanent residence on its territory. Moreover,
she failed to fulfil the requirements within the preclusive period
stipulated by Section 5 (2) of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitations.
Mrs. Hastings-Tuzilova acquired Czech citizenship and registered her
permanent residence on 30 September 1992.

8.3 Section 20 (3) of the
law on extrajudicial rehabilitations says that the statutory period for the
submission of applications for restitution based on the sentence of
forfeiture which was declared null and void after the entry into force of
the law on extrajudicial rehabilitations starts on the day of the entry into
force of the annulment. Nevertheless, this provision cannot be applied in
the case of Mrs. Hastings-Tuzilova due to the fact that her judicial
rehabilitation entered into force on 9 October 1990, i.e. before the entry
into force of Law No. 87/1991 on extrajudicial rehabilitations (1 April
1991).

9.1 With respect to the
communication of Mr. Josef Prochazka the State party argues that Section 3
of Law No. 87/1991 on extrajudicial rehabilitations defines the entitled
person, i.e. the person who could within the statutory period claim the
restitution of property or compensation. Applicants who did not acquire
citizenship of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and register their
permanent residence on its territory before the end of the statutory period
determined for the submission of applications (i.e. before 1 October 1991
for applicants for restitution and before 1 April 1992 for applicants for
compensation) are not considered entitled persons.

9.2 From Mr. Prochazka's
submission the State party concludes that the property devolved to the State
on the basis of the ruling of the Usti nad Labem District Court of 1974
which declared the 1969 deed of gift null and void for the reason that the
donor left the territory of the former Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Such
cases are provided for in Section 6 (1) (f) of the law on extrajudicial
rehabilitations which defined the entitled person as the transferee
according to the invalidated deed, i.e. in this case the entitled person is
the unnamed father of Mr. Prochazka. Consequently, the persons to whom the
sentence of forfeiture invalidated under Law No. 119/1990 on judicial
rehabilitations applies, cannot be regarded as entitled persons, as Mr.
Prochazka incorrectly assumes.

9.3 With regard to the
fact that the above-mentioned father of Mr. Prochazka died before the entry
into force of the law on extrajudicial rehabilitations, the entitled persons
are the testamentary heirs - Mr. Prochazka's sons Josef Prochazka and Jiri
Prochazka, provided that they were citizens of the former Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic and had permanent residence on its territory. The fact that
they were rehabilitated pursuant to the law on judicial rehabilitations has
no significance in this case. From Mr. Prochazka's submission the State
party concludes that Josef Prochazka and Jiri Prochazka are Czech citizens
but live in Switzerland and did not apply for permanent residence in the
Czech Republic.

AUTHORS' COMMENTS ON THE STATE
PARTY'S SUBMISSIONS

10.1 By letter of 21
February 1995, Alina and Jaroslav Simunek contend that the State party has
not addressed the issues raised by their communication, namely the
compatibility of Act No. 87/1991 with the non-discrimination requirement of
article 26 of the Covenant. They claim that Czech hard-liners are still in
office and that they have no interest in the restitution of confiscated
properties, because they themselves benefited from the confiscations. A
proper restitution law should be based on democratic principles and not
allow restrictions that would exclude former Czech citizens and Czech
citizens living abroad.

10.2 By letter of 12 June
1995 Mr. Prochazka informed the Committee that by order of the District
Court of 12 April 1995 the plot of land he inherited from his father will be
returned to him (paragraph 2.11).

10.3 Mrs. Hastings Tuzilova
had not submitted comments by the time of the consideration of the merits of
this communication by the Committee.

EXAMINATION OF THE MERITS

11.1 The Human Rights
Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the
information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5,
paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol.

11.2 This communication was
declared admissible only insofar as it may raise issues under article 14,
paragraph 6, and article 26 of the Covenant. With regard to article 14,
paragraph 6, the Committee finds that the authors have not sufficiently
substantiated their allegations and that the information before it does not
sustain a finding of a violation.

11.3 As the Committee has
already explained in its decision on admissibility (para. 4.3 above), the
right to property, as such, is not protected under the Covenant. However, a
confiscation of private property or the failure by a State party to pay
compensation for such confiscation could still entail a breach of the
Covenant if the relevant act or omission was based on discriminatory grounds
in violation of article 26 of the Covenant.

11.4 The issue before the
Committee is whether the application of Act 87/1991 to the authors entailed
a violation of their rights to equality before the law and to the equal
protection of the law. The authors claim that this Act, in effect, reaffirms
the earlier discriminatory confiscations. The Committee observes that the
confiscations themselves are not here at issue, but rather the denial of a
remedy to the authors, whereas other claimants have recovered their
properties or received compensation therefor.

11.5 In the instant cases,
the authors have been affected by the exclusionary effect of the requirement
in Act 87/1991 that claimants be Czech citizens and residents of the Czech
Republic. The question before the Committee, therefore, is whether these
preconditions to restitution or compensation are compatible with the
non-discrimination requirement of article 26 of the Covenant. In this
context the Committee reiterates its jurisprudence that not all
differentiation in treatment can be deemed to be discriminatory under
article 26 of the Covenant Zwaan de Vries v. The Netherlands, Communication
No. 182/1984, Views adopted on 9 April 1987, para. 13.. A differentiation
which is compatible with the provisions of the Covenant and is based on
reasonable grounds does not amount to prohibited discrimination within the
meaning of article 26.

11.6 In examining whether
the conditions for restitution or compensation are compatible with the
Covenant, the Committee must consider all relevant factors, including the
authors' original entitlement to the property in question and the nature of
the confiscations. The State party itself acknowledges that the
confiscations were discriminatory, and this is the reason why specific
legislation was enacted to provide for a form of restitution. The Committee
observes that such legislation must not discriminate among the victims of
the prior confiscations, since all victims are entitled to redress without
arbitrary distinctions. Bearing in mind that the authors' original
entitlement to their respective properties was not predicated either on
citizenship or residence, the Committee finds that the conditions of
citizenship and residence in Act 87/1991 are unreasonable. In this
connection the Committee notes that the State party has not advanced any
grounds which would justify these restrictions. Moreover, it has been
submitted that the authors and many others in their situation left
Czechoslovakia because of their political opinions and that their property
was confiscated either because of their political opinions or because of
their emigration from the country. These victims of political persecution
sought residence and citizenship in other countries. Taking into account
that the State party itself is responsible for the departure of the authors,
it would be incompatible with the Covenant to require them permanently to
return to the country as a prerequisite for the restitution of their
property or for the payment of appropriate compensation.

11.7 The State party
contends that there is no violation of the Covenant because the Czech and
Slovak legislators had no discriminatory intent at the time of the adoption
of Act 87/1991. The Committee is of the view, however, that the intent of
the legislature is not alone dispositive in determining a breach of article
26 of the Covenant. A politically motivated differentiation is unlikely to
be compatible with article 26. But an act which is not politically motivated
may still contravene article 26 if its effects are discriminatory.

11.8 In the light of the
above considerations, the Committee concludes that Act 87/1991 has had
effects upon the authors that violate their rights under article 26 of the
Covenant.

12.1 The Human Rights
Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is
of the view that the denial of restitution or compensation to the authors
constitutes a violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights.

12.2 In accordance with
article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an
obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy, which may be
compensation if the properties in question cannot be returned. To the extent
that partial restitution of Mr. Prochazka's property appears to have been or
may soon be effected (para. 10.2), the Committee welcomes this measure,
which it deems to constitute partial compliance with these Views. The
Committee further encourages the State party to review its relevant
legislation to ensure that neither the law itself nor its application is
discriminatory.

12.3 Bearing in mind that,
by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized
the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a
violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the
Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within
its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the
Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a
violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the
State party, within ninety days, information about the measures taken to
give effect to the Committee's Views.